U-T priorities, Wall Street protest, killing of Al-Awlaki

Try a new game on front page

I am tired of seeing sports prominently featured on the front page of the U-T (“Chargers’ fast start continues,” Oct. 3). I think it trivializes the newspaper and brings its credibility into question.

I have a front-page story that’s not sexy and not necessarily easily understood: How about outlining the budget process established by Congress and talking about when the Senate actually voted on a budget?

Perhaps the U-T could tie this failure to debate and vote on a budget into why Congress continually has to have continuing resolutions and maybe put into some perspective a little bit who is responsible for the apparent dysfunction when it comes to our budgeting problems. -- David Molnar, San Diego

Protesters’ objective seems very clear

It is amusing how the protests in New York are being covered. The articles, including “A Wall Street occupation” (Oct. 3), are never on the front page. And all of them say the same thing about the protests: “They lack a clear objective.”

What kind of “clear objective” would you suggest for these issues that are being raised? No. 1: One percent of the population has more money than the other 99 percent. No. 2: Our governments (legislatures, executive branches and courts) are pretty much all owned by wealthy corporate interests because it takes a lot of money to run for an office. No. 3: Most regulatory and other government agencies are staffed by people from the industries that they are overseeing. No. 4: To counter climate change, we would need Congress to pass some laws (see No. 2). No. 5: Illegal acts by financial institutions that caused our financial disaster are not being prosecuted (see No. 2).

In fact, see No. 2 for why nothing to solve any of our problems is being done. -- Crystal M. Clearwater, San Diego

What’s appropriate in fighting terrorism?

Under certain circumstances, it is entirely appropriate to end the life of another person without trial. Persons acting in self-defense to protect themselves may end the life of another without trial. Soldiers on duty and under the lawful command of officers may end the life of another without trial.

Was there a reasonable belief that Anwar al-Awlaki (“Strike kills U.S. terrorist,” Oct. 1) represented a credible threat of grievous bodily harm or death to others? There is plenty of evidence directly tying him to the “Underwear Bomber” and to Maj. Nidal Hassan, who is accused in the Fort Hood shootings.

While we may not be in a declared war as understood by our Constitution, Anwar al-Awlaki and his organization presented a sufficient threat to warrant military intervention. Whatever people may think of our political leadership, no one can doubt that appropriate steps were taken to ensure that the strike would stand up to legal scrutiny.

We must debate and argue the definition of war in its modern context and the Constitution’s direction that only Congress may declare war. It is appropriate for civil liberty advocates to start that discourse now, rather than to whine about the elimination of the very real threat al-Awlaki presented. -- David Fetchina, San Diego

How can the U-T publish a headline without the word “suspected”? Do they still teach civics at journalism school? I’m sure, somewhere at your sprawling Mission Valley campus, there is a copy of the U.S. Constitution. In it, there is something called the Fifth Amendment, which provides the right to due process, even for suspected U.S. terrorists.

In fairness, the U-T’s story mentioned it – in the third to last paragraph on Page A3, when most readers had already moved along. -- David Black, Escondido